Wood v Racing Queensland Ltd - [2010] QCAT 694

CITATION:

Wood v Racing Queensland Ltd [2010] QCAT 694

PARTIES:	Mr Justin Thomas Wood
v
Racing Queensland Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR253-10

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

3 November 2010

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON:

19 November 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The penalty of a suspension for four (4) weeks is set aside.

3. The Applicant’s licence to ride is suspended for a period of three (3) weeks, such suspension to commence on 5 December 2010.

CATCHWORDS:

Australian Racing Rule 135(b) considered – where applicant failed to follow trainers instructions – whether all reasonable and permissible measures taken – penalty reduced by one week to take into account mitigating factors

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Justin Thomas Wood represented by Mr J Murdoch SC
RESPONDENT:	Racing Queensland represented by Mr D Aurish

REASONS FOR DECISION

Justin Wood was the rider of Rightson in race 2, the Doomben Open Handicap over 1615 metres, on 11 September 2010. Rightson placed second in the race. At the conclusion of the race stewards charged Mr Wood with a breach of Australian Racing Rule 135(b) in that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that Rightson was given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in the field.

As a consequence of the charge being laid and proved to the satisfaction of stewards, Mr Wood’s license to ride was suspended for a period of four weeks.

Mr Wood appealed to the First Level Appeals committee and on 6 October 2010 the appeal was dismissed.

The particulars of the charge were as follows:

i) That after receiving specific instructions from trainer Barry Baldwin to position Rightson forward with a view to be positioned to the outside of the likely leader Poor Judge, and after Rightson began on terms with the main body of the field and an opportunity existed to comply with his instructions, he elected to restrain Rightson in an endeavour to take a position behind Rebounded;
ii) From leaving the 1,300 metres until approaching the 1,000 metres when Rightson was travelling well in a 3 wide position he failed to take an opportunity to follow Adavale Hornet forward when the pace was slow and instead restrained Rightson to a trailing position behind Rebounded.

After considering the evidence, the stewards formed the opinion that Mr Wood’s riding of Rightson during the first 600 metres of the event was not in accordance with specific instructions given to him by Mr Baldwin, the trainer, and this denied Rightson the opportunity to win or obtain the best possible place in the field. Australian Racing Rule 135 provides:

a)Every horse shall be run on its merits.
b)The rider of every horse should take all reasonable and permissible measures through the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in the field.
c)Any person…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wood v Racing Queensland Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] QCAT 694
Decision Date: 19 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wood v Racing Queensland Ltd involved an application by a jockey, the applicant, to overturn a suspension imposed on their racing licence by Racing Queensland Ltd, the respondent. The applicant contested the imposition of a four-week suspension under Australian Racing Rule 135(b), which pertains to the failure of a jockey to follow their trainer's instructions. The application was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), which was tasked with determining whether the penalty was just and whether all reasonable and permissible measures were taken in arriving at the penalty.

The central legal issue before the tribunal was whether the penalty was excessive and whether the applicant had failed to follow their trainer's instructions. The applicant argued that the penalty was disproportionate to the offence, and that mitigating factors should have been taken into account. The tribunal had to consider whether all reasonable and permissible measures were taken by Racing Queensland Ltd in imposing the penalty. The applicant contended that there were mitigating factors that warranted a reduction in the penalty, including their previous good record and the lack of harm caused by the incident.

The tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while the penalty was excessive, it was not so disproportionate as to be unjust. The tribunal noted that the applicant had indeed failed to follow their trainer's instructions, and that this was a significant factor in the imposition of the penalty. However, the tribunal also took into account the mitigating factors presented by the applicant, and reduced the penalty by one week to a three-week suspension, effective from 5 December 2010. The tribunal found that the reduced penalty was just and proportionate to the offence, taking into account all relevant factors.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The penalty of a suspension for four (4) weeks is set aside.

3. The Applicant’s licence to ride is suspended for a period of three (3) weeks, such suspension to commence on 5 December 2010.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.